No Compulsion in Religion – La ikraha fiddin: Coercion, Jizya, Apostasy, and the Limits of Religious Freedom in Classical Islam

Introduction

A widely held belief among ordinary Muslims is that “There is no compulsion in religion”, as stated in verse 256 of Surah al-Baqarah ^[1]. This verse is often used to advertise Islam’s tolerance. It is widely used when preaching Islam in Europe, America, or other civilized countries. However, an analysis of the Quran, the Prophet’s Sunnah and hadith, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), and authoritative works of tafsir shows that this claim of individual freedom is essentially disproven by institutional coercion at two principal levels. In other words, although this verse was applicable to Muslims when they were a minority during Islam’s early period, it is not universally the policy or approach of Islam. As soon as Islam becomes the majority, it openly declares coercion.

Although verses of tolerance were revealed during the early period of Islamic history, when Muslims were weak, they were subsequently abrogated or rendered ‘mansukh’. According to renowned commentators, after verses 5 and 73 of Surah at-Tawbah (the verses of the sword) were revealed, imposing Islam upon non-Muslims became legitimate. The polytheists or idolaters of Arabia, in particular, were left with only two options: either accept Islam or face death ( Surah at-Tawbah, verse: 5 ). Jews and Christians (Ahl al-Kitab), on the other hand, were allowed to survive as humiliated, second-class citizens on the condition that they pay the jizya tax. In other words, military and economic pressure is imposed upon them, directly or indirectly coercing them until they accept Islam.

Once a person enters the fold of Islam, however, that person no longer retains the right to individual conscience or choice. If a Muslim wishes to change his religion or leave Islam, the death penalty is prescribed as punishment. From the perspective of modern human rights, this constitutes the ultimate coercion over an individual’s identity and beliefs. Islam endorses the use of force not only in cases of apostasy but also in the performance of personal acts of worship; for example, instructions are given to beat children if they do not perform prayer after reaching the age of ten. A hardline section of Salafis believes that it is also permissible in Islam to declare a person who does not pray an apostate and kill him. Some renowned scholars have also expressed the opinion that a person may be killed if, even after knowing an authentic hadith to be authentic, he refuses to acknowledge it as true. Even during the reign of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, those who merely refused to pay zakat were branded ‘apostates’ or rebels, war was waged against them, and they were killed en masse. This demonstrates that Islam allows no scope for individual freedom within its fold; rather, it is a system of compulsory obedience.

The Modern Secular Liberal Perspective

The divergence between the moral standards and secular legal frameworks of the modern world and the coercive provisions of classical Islam is exceptionally stark. The fundamental basis of contemporary human rights is an individual’s autonomy over their own mind and body, together with freedom of conscience, which is not subordinate to any religious or state authority. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that every person has the full right, according to their own will, to adopt and practise a religion, to believe or disbelieve, and even to change their religion at any time ^[4]. In a secular society, a citizen’s dignity does not depend on their religious identity; rather, the state grants them equal rights as a human being. By contrast, classifications such as “dhimmi” and “apostate” found in classical Islamic law directly negate the modern concept of civic equality and divide society on the basis of religious supremacism.

From a moral standpoint, if a belief is imposed through fear of the sword or legal punishment, it no longer remains a “belief”; rather, it becomes a form of “political allegiance” or “servitude.” If a Muslim is told that abandoning Islam will result in the death penalty, this amounts to coercion against their freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and freedom of thought, suppressing their conscience and reason within a culture of fear. From the secular and liberal perspective, the path to seeking truth must remain open, and no ideology is beyond criticism. Yet when Islamic law treats an apostate or someone who renounces the religion as a “traitor” and sentences them to death, individual conscience is stifled. According to modern ethics, subjecting children to religious severity or physical abuse is detrimental to their psychological development and constitutes a violation of fundamental children’s rights ^[5]. In other words, a civilized and humane society can develop only when dissent does not place anyone’s life at risk and religion is regarded as an entirely personal choice that cannot in any way be used as an instrument of state or social coercion.

Is There No Compulsion in Religion?

At the outset, a misconception needs to be corrected. Many modern Muslims frequently claim that the word Islam means peace. In fact, Islam means submission; that is, Islam teaches that peace can be attained only through complete submission. Let us hear what Dr. Abu Bakr Muhammad Zakaria says about this meaning of the word Islam,

The Quran, the sacred scripture of Islam, states, ^[6]

Quran reference : Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:256
Arabic : لَآ إِكۡرَاهَ فِي ٱلدِّينِۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشۡدُ مِنَ ٱلۡغَيِّۚ فَمَن يَكۡفُرۡ بِٱلطَّٰغُوتِ وَيُؤۡمِنۢ بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسۡتَمۡسَكَ بِٱلۡعُرۡوَةِ ٱلۡوُثۡقَىٰ لَا ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَاۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ ٢٥٦
Translation — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran : Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

The actual interpretation of the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” can be found in Islamic tafsir works. What is essentially meant here is that this verse constituted a ruling revealed during the early period of Islam, when the Muslims were weak. It was later abrogated for the polytheists by the Verse of the Sword, or Surah At-Tawbah. Likewise, with the exception of a few specific cases, all the peaceful verses revealed during the early period were effectively abrogated. According to Islamic law, there is no opportunity to renounce the religion after accepting Islam, while the People of the Book—that is, Jews and Christians—have no options other than accepting Islam, facing war, or paying the jizya tax. Polytheists or idolaters, on the other hand, have only two paths open to them: they must either accept Islam or be killed. This is not any form of peaceful coexistence; rather, the religious and social freedoms of non-Muslims are restricted under an Islamic state. This Islamic ruling is a clear violation of the “freedom of religion” and “freedom of expression” set out in international human rights instruments, which are the birthright of every human being.

At the same time, let us hear directly from one of the most renowned Islamic scholars what they say about the interpretation of this verse,

Although Islamists often invoke this verse to argue in favor of coexistence, their conduct and Islamic history prove otherwise. Following the conquest of Mecca, numerous wars were waged to expand Islam, in which non-Muslim idolaters had no option other than accepting Islam if they wished to remain alive. These are clear examples of forced conversion. A famous hadith of the Prophet states that he was commanded to fight people until they acknowledged “there is no deity except Allah”. This clearly indicates that there is no place for tolerance in Islam; rather, it calls for the overthrow of other religions and ideologies in order to establish Islam.

All these provisions completely refute Islam’s claims of tolerance and religious freedom in practice. According to Islamic laws and regulations, the rights of non-Muslims are restricted, and they are treated as second-class citizens, which constitutes a violation of human rights. Therefore, although the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” is presented as a symbol of tolerance, Islam in fact wholly contradicts it through its scriptural provisions and practical conduct. We shall now examine the exegeses of these verses to understand their actual context and circumstances of revelation.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir: The Ultimate Form of Coercion

Ibn Kathir presents two principal views in his explanation of this verse. First, it applies only to those among the People of the Book who submit by paying the humiliating jizya. The second and more severe view is that this verse was abrogated (mansukh) by the subsequent “verse of jihad” or “verse of the sword.” Muslims are now obliged to compel all people either to accept Islam or to submit. The true objective of Sharia is to wage armed warfare, or jihad, against those who refuse to do so.

A large group of scholars maintain that this verse applies to those People of the Book who embraced their religion before its abrogation and who paid the jizya after Islam had been established.
Another group maintains that this verse was abrogated by the verse of warfare. Therefore, it is now obligatory for every Muslim to invite all communities to the true and straight path of Islam. If anyone now refuses to accept it or declines to submit to Muslim authority by paying the jizya, jihad must be declared against them. This is the true meaning of “ikrah,” or coercion. For Allah the Exalted says elsewhere:
سَتُدْعَوْنَ إِلَى قَوْمٍ أُولِي بَأْسٍ شَدِيدٍ تُقَاتِلُونَهُمْ أَوْ يُسْلِمُونَ : 21
“Very soon you will be called against a people of tremendous might; you will fight them, or they will embrace Islam.”
Allah the Exalted has further said:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ جَاهِدِ الْكُفَّارَ وَالْمُنْفِقِينَ وَاغْلُظْ عَلَيْهِمْ
“O Prophet! Fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh with them.”
Elsewhere in the Quran it is stated:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ يَلُوْنَكُمْ مِنَ الْكُفَّارِ وَلْيَجِدُوا فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةٌ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ.
Meaning: “O believers! Fight against the disbelievers in your vicinity, be harsh with them, and know that Allah is with the God-fearing.”

Tafsir al-Jalalayn: Institutional Confinement

According to al-Jalalayn, this verse applies exclusively to those among the People of the Book who pay the jizya. A subtle distinction is drawn here, however: although no one is to be compelled to enter Islam, once someone has entered, there is no opportunity to leave it (to become an apostate). The death penalty for apostasy is compared here to punishments for crimes such as treason or murder. It is argued that abandoning Islam is not a matter of individual freedom; rather, under the pretext of preserving state order, individuals are to be kept within Islam through the use of force.

From the perspective of the circumstances of revelation, the exegetes consider this specific to the People of the Book. That is, if any member of the People of the Book residing in an Islamic state pays the tax, they will not be compelled to accept Islam. In fact, the ruling of this verse is general. That is, no one may be compelled to accept Islam, because Allah has made guidance and misguidance clear. Nevertheless, the injunction of jihad for ending kufr and shirk and weakening the power of falsehood is a different matter from the coercion mentioned here. The purpose of jihad is to suppress the power that obstructs the practice of Allah’s religion and the propagation and dissemination of His chosen religion. This is because such powers occasionally raise their heads. For this reason, the command and necessity of jihad will remain in force until the Day of Resurrection, as stated in the hadith. Likewise, this verse has no connection with the sentence or punishment for apostasy. The purpose of this punishment is not to compel anyone to accept Islam; rather, it is intended to preserve Islamic perspectives, rules, and principles. In an Islamic state, an unbeliever may be permitted to remain steadfast in their disbelief. But once that person has embraced Islam, they cannot be permitted to oppose it or renounce it. Therefore, they should think carefully before accepting Islam. For if apostasy were permitted, the fundamental perspective would be destroyed. This would also increase ideological division and hostility, thereby endangering the peace and security of the Islamic social order and the stability of the state. For this reason, just as murder, theft, robbery, adultery, and other wrongdoings cannot be permitted in the name of human rights, ideological rebellion—that is, apostasy—cannot likewise be permitted in the same Islamic state in the name of free thought. This is not coercion; rather, the death penalty for an apostate is just adjudication in precisely the same way that imposing severe punishment upon those involved in murder, robbery, and various moral transgressions is considered legally correct. The purpose of one is to preserve the rules and order of the state, while the purpose of the other is to protect the state from various forms of fitna-fasad. Both are indispensable to the orderly functioning of the state. The disorder, insecurity, and instability suffered by most present-day Islamic states because they have failed to give due importance to these two matters need no elaboration.

Tafsir al-Mazhari: Dehumanization and Double Standards

Tafsir al-Mazhari claims that jihad is not intended to turn people into believers by force, but rather to eliminate ‘disorder in the world.’ Yet the ‘creators of disorder’ here are explicitly identified as non-Muslims or unbelievers. Unbelievers are compared to venomous snakes, scorpions, or rabid dogs, thereby presenting their killing or their compulsion to pay jizya as reasonable. At the same time, it is said that since Islam is wholly beneficial, the use of force is irrelevant, because everyone will necessarily accept what is beneficial.

Neither sincerity nor the test can be completed in this manner. Does this command apply only to certain people, or does it apply generally to everyone? In response, some scholars say that this verse is specifically intended for the People of the Book, namely the Jews, because it was revealed concerning the children of the Ansar who followed Judaism and Christianity.
I say that this command is general. Some scholars say that the verse was abrogated by Allah Almighty’s commands, ‘Fight against the polytheists’ and ‘Fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites.’ Al-Baghawi and Hazrat Ibn Mas’ud have said the same.
I say that abrogation can occur only when two commands contradict one another. Here, however, one verse does not conflict with the other. The purpose of warfare is not to compel people to become believers. Rather, jihad has been commanded to eliminate disorder and destructive activities from the earth. Allah the Pure wants people to follow the straight and simple path and worship Him. The disbelievers who create disorder are like venomous snakes, scorpions, and rabid dogs. They have therefore been ordered to be killed. It is for this reason that Allah Almighty imposed the jizyah tax upon them. Allah Almighty says, ‘Until they acknowledge submission and agree to pay the jizyah tax as subjects.’ The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) prohibited the killing of children, women, the destitute, scholars who had renounced the world, the disabled, and the blind, because they are incapable of creating disorder and engaging in destructive activities.
‘The true path has become clearly distinct from the path of error.’ The miracles of the Noble Messenger (peace be upon him) and sound reason testify that faith is indeed the straight and correct path, one that endures and leads to perfection. The path of disbelief, by contrast, is crooked and proceeds toward injustice. There is now no room for excuses or objections. Nor is there any further need for coercion.
Al-Baydawi interpreted this verse by explaining that coercion means making someone perform an act that contains benefit for that person. Religion is nothing but benefit, and benefit is necessarily distinct from error. Guidance has been made manifest before those who possess knowledge. Those who seek deliverance and pursue righteous deeds will naturally advance toward accepting guidance. Coercion is therefore unnecessary.

Ibn Baz: “There Is No Compulsion in Religion” — Islam, Jizyah, or War

The fatwa of Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and one of the most influential Salafi scholars of the twentieth century, is particularly important when the Quranic statement “There is no compulsion in religion” is presented as a declaration of universal religious freedom. Here, he was directly asked about the verses from Surah Yunus—“So would you compel the people until they become believers?”—and Surah al-Baqarah—“There is no compulsion in religion.” In response, Ibn Baz presents two recognized scholarly positions. According to the first, “no compulsion” applies primarily to those groups from whom Jizyah may be accepted, such as Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians; in other words, they are given the choice between Islam and paying Jizyah in submission. According to the second position, this prohibition on compulsion belonged to the early period of Islam and was later abrogated by the verses commanding Jihad and Qital. Ibn Baz, however, does not merely report these two positions; he also makes his preferred position clear—those from whom Jizyah is not accepted are obliged to be compelled to accept Islam, while if Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians reject both Islam and Jizyah, Muslims are obliged to fight them when they possess the capability to do so. He even compares this form of compulsion with compelling someone through imprisonment or beating to fulfill an obligation owed to another person, and argues that compelling disbelievers to embrace Tawhid and enter Islam is even more important. Thus, “there is no compulsion in religion” does not function here as freedom of belief in the modern sense; rather, it operates in a restricted sense within a conditional legal framework of Islam, Jizyah, and military submission for particular groups ^[9].

Original Arabic:
لا إكراه في قبول الإسلام
س: يقول بعض الزملاء: من لم يدخل الإسلام يعتبر حرا لا يكره على الإسلام ويستدل بقوله تعالى: أَفَأَنْتَ تُكْرِهُ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ [يونس:99]، وقوله تعالى: لا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ [البقرة:256] فما رأي سماحتكم في هذا؟
ج: هاتان الآيتان الكريمتان والآيات الأخرى التي في معناهما بين العلماء أنها في حق من تؤخذ منهم الجزية كاليهود والنصارى والمجوس، لا يكرهون، بل يخيرون بين الإسلام وبين بذل الجزية.
وقال آخرون من أهل العلم: إنها كانت في أول الأمر ثم نسخت بأمر الله سبحانه بالقتال والجهاد، فمن أبى الدخول في الإسلام وجب جهاده مع القدرة حتى يدخل في الإسلام أو يؤدي الجزية إن كان من أهلها، فالواجب إلزام الكفار بالإسلام إذا كانوا لا تؤخذ منهم الجزية؛ لأن إسلامهم فيه سعادتهم ونجاتهم في الدنيا والآخرة، فإلزام الإنسان بالحق الذي فيه الهدى والسعادة خير له من الباطل، كما يلزم الإنسان بالحق الذي عليه لبني آدم ولو بالسجن أو بالضرب، فإلزام الكفار بتوحيد الله والدخول في دين الإسلام أولى وأوجب؛ لأن فيه سعادتهم في العاجل والآجـل إلا إذا كانوا من أهل الكتاب كاليهود والنصارى أو المجوس، فهذه الطوائف الثلاث جاء الشرع بأنهم يخيرون، فإما أن يدخلوا في الإسلام، وإما أن يبذلوا الجزية عن يد وهم صاغرون.
وذهب بعض أهل العلم إلى إلحاق غيرهم بهم في التخيير بين الإسلام والجزية، والأرجح أنه لا يلحق بهم غيرهم، بل هؤلاء الطوائف الثلاث هم الذين يخيرون؛ لأن الرسول ﷺ قاتل الكفار في الجزيرة ولم يقبل منهم إلا الإسلام، قال تعالى: فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ [التوبة: 5] ولم يقل: أو أدوا الجزية، فاليهود والنصارى والمجوس يطالبون بالإسلام، فإن أبوا فالجزية، فإن أبوا وجب على أهل الإسلام قتالهم، إن استطاعوا ذلك، يقول : قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ َورَسُولُهُ وَلا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ [التوبة: 29].
ولما ثبت عن النبي ﷺ أنه أخذ الجزية من المجوس، ولم يثبت عن النبي ﷺ ولا عن أصحابه رضي الله عنهم أنهم أخذوا الجزية من غير الطوائف الثلاث المذكورة، والأصل في هذا قوله تعالى: وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّى لا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ كُلُّهُ لِلَّهِ [الأنفال: 39] وقوله سبحانه: فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ [التوبة: 5] وهذه الآية تسمى آية السيف، وهي وأمثالها هي الناسخة للآيات التي فيها عدم الإكراه على الإسلام.
والله الموفق[1].

Freedom to Choice Regarding Acceptance of Islam
Q: Some colleagues say: Whoever does not enter Islam is considered free and cannot be compelled to enter Islam. They site as evidence the saying of Allah Almighty: ‘So would you compel the people until they become believers?’ [Yunus: 99], and His saying: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ [Al-Baqarah: 256]. What is your Eminent Eminence’s opinion on this matter?
A: These two noble verses, and other verses bearing similar meanings, have been clarified by scholars as applying specifically to those from whom the Jizyah (tribute tax) is taken, such as Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. They are not to be compelled; rather, they are given the choice between accepting Islam or paying the Jizyah.
Other scholars have stated that this was the ruling in the beginning, but it was later abrogated (naskh) by Allah Almighty’s command to fight and engage in Jihad. Thus, whoever refuses to enter Islam must be fought—provided there is capability—until they either enter Islam or pay the Jizyah if they belong to those eligible to pay it. Therefore, it is obligatory to compel non-Muslims to accept Islam if they are not among those from whom Jizyah can be accepted. This is because their acceptance of Islam contains their salvation and happiness in this world and the Hereafter. Compelling a person toward the truth, which contains guidance and happiness, is better for them than leaving them upon falsehood—just as a person is compelled to fulfill the rights due to fellow human beings, even through imprisonment or corporal punishment. Thus, compelling non-Muslims to accept the monotheism of Allah and enter the religion of Islam is even more paramount and obligatory, for therein lies their happiness in the immediate life and the Hereafter—unless they are People of the Book (Jews and Christians) or Zoroastrians. For these three groups, the Islamic law dictates that they are given the choice: to enter Islam, or to pay the Jizyah willingly while being humbled.
Some scholars held the view of extending this choice between Islam and Jizyah to other non-Muslim groups as well. However, the most correct and stronger view is that others are not to be included with them; rather, only these three groups are given the choice. This is because the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) fought the non-Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula and accepted nothing from them except Islam. Allah Almighty says: ‘But if they repent, establish prayer, and give Zakat, then let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful’ [At-Tawbah: 5]—He did not say: ‘or if they pay the Jizyah.’ Thus, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians are called to Islam; if they refuse, Jizyah is demanded; if they refuse that as well, it becomes obligatory upon the Muslims to fight them, provided they possess the capability to do so. Allah Almighty says: ‘Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled’ [At-Tawbah: 29].
Since it is authentically established that the Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted Jizyah from the Zoroastrians, whereas it is not established from the Prophet (peace be upon him) nor from his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that they took Jizyah from any group other than the three mentioned, the foundational rule in this regard remains the saying of Allah Almighty: ‘And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah’ [Al-Anfal: 39], and His saying: ‘And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful’ [At-Tawbah: 5]. This verse is called ‘Ayat al-Sayf’ (the Sword Verse), and it, along with similar verses, abrogates the verses that state there is no compulsion in Islam.
And Allah is the Granter of success. [Majmoo’ Fatawa Ibn Baz, Vol. 6, p. 219]

The significance of this fatwa is that there is no need to infer the meaning of “compulsion” from an ambiguous historical episode. Ibn Baz himself explicitly uses the expressions “compelling the disbelievers to accept Islam” (إلزام الكفار بالإسلام), “imprisonment or beating” (بالسجن أو بالضرب), Jihad against those who refuse Islam, Qital when Jizyah is rejected, and finally the position that verses concerning “no compulsion” were abrogated by the Sword Verse—all within the same answer. Therefore, presenting “La ikraha fi al-din” in the modern sense as a universal and unconditional right of every person to accept Islam, reject it, or remain in their own religion with equal status is not directly compatible with Ibn Baz’s interpretation. In his framework, the scope of religious freedom is determined by a person’s religious category, eligibility for Jizyah, and the military capability of Muslims.

The Highest Fatwa of the Modern Age

Let us now examine a fatwa issued by Saudi Arabia’s highest Islamic Sharia board. This fatwa was published on the renowned fatwa website islamqa.info, which is directly administered by Sheikh Salih al-Munajjid, the foremost contemporary Salafi scholar ^[10]

There is no compulsion to accept Islam
08/Shawwal/1423 , 12/December/2002
Question 34770
Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad) then compel mankind, until they become believers”
[Yoonus 10:99]
“There is no compulsion in religion”
[al-Baqarah 2:256]
What is your opinion concerning that?.
Answer
Praise be to Allah, and blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah:
The scholars explained that these two verses, and other similar verses, have to do with those from whom the jizyah may be taken, such as Jews, Christians and Magians (Zoroastrians). They are not to be forced, rather they are to be given the choice between becoming Muslim or paying the jizyah.
Other scholars said that this applied in the beginning, but was subsequently abrogated by Allah’s command to fight and wage jihad. So whoever refuses to enter Islam should be fought when the Muslims are able to fight, until they either enter Islam or pay the jizyah if they are among the people who may pay jizyah. The kuffaar should be compelled to enter Islam if they are not people from whom the jizyah may be taken, because that will lead to their happiness and salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Obliging a person to adhere to the truth in which is guidance and happiness is better for him than falsehood. Just as a person may be forced to do the duty that he owes to other people even if that is by means of imprisonment or beating, so forcing the kaafirs to believe in Allah alone and enter into the religion of Islam is more important and more essential, because this will lead to their happiness in this world and in the Hereafter. This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.
Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
[al-Tawbah 9:29]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.
The basic principle concerning that is the words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]”
[al-Anfaal 8:39]
“Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
This verse is known as Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword).
These and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.
And Allah is the Source of strength.

Let us read another famous fatwa, ^[11]

Was Islam spread by the sword?
02/Jumada al-thani/1424 , 31/July/2003
178,102
Question 43087
Was Islam spread by the sword?.
Answer
Praise be to Allah, and blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah:
We have already stated in question no. 34830 that jihad is of two types: taking the initiative in fighting and jihad in self-defence.
Undoubtedly taking the initiative in fighting has a great effect in spreading Islam and bringing people into the religion of Allaah in crowds. Hence the hearts of the enemies of Islam are filled with fear of jihad.
In the English-language Muslim World Magazine it says: There should be some kind of fear in the western world, one of the causes of which is that since the time it first appeared in Makkah, Islam has never decreased in numbers, rather it has always continued to increase and spread. Moreover Islam is not only a religion, rather one of its pillars is jihad.
Robert Bean says: The Muslims conquered the entire world before and they could do it again.
The Orientalists wanted to slander Islam by claiming that it was spread by the sword.
The orientalist Thomas Arnold wrote his book The Preaching of Islam with the aim of killing off the spirit of jihad among the Muslims and proving that Islam was not spread by the sword, rather that it spread by means of peaceful preaching, free from any use of force.
The Muslims fell into the trap that was set up for them. When they heard the orientalists’ accusations that Islam was spread by the sword, they said: You are mistaken, listen to a refutation from one of your own people, this Thomas says such and such.
The defeatists among the Muslims come out to defend Islam, and they want to disavow Islam of this so-called lie, so they deny that Islam was spread by the sword, and they say that jihad is not prescribed in Islam, except in the case of self-defence. There is no such thing in Islam as taking the initiative in fighting in their view. This goes against what the Muslim scholars have stated, let alone the fact that it goes against the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/263.
The purpose is that all religion should be for Allaah alone, and that the word of Allaah should be supreme. The word of Allaah is a comprehensive phrase that refers to His words that are contained in His Book. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice”
[al-Hadeed 57:25]
The purpose behind sending the Messengers and revealing the Books was so that mankind might keep up justice with regard to the rights of Allaah and the rights of His creation. Then Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And We brought forth iron wherein is mighty power (in matters of war), as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allaah may test who it is that will help Him (His religion) and His Messengers in the unseen”
[al-Hadeed 57:25]
So whoever deviates from the Book is to be brought back with iron, i.e. by force. Hence the soundness of the religion is based on the Qur’aan and the Sword. It was narrated that Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded us to strike with this, meaning the sword, whoever turns away from this, meaning the Qur’aan.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Faroosiyyah (p.18):
Allaah sent him – meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – with the guiding Book and the conquering sword, ahead of the Hour, so that Allaah alone would be worshipped with no partner or associate, and his provision was placed beneath the shade of his sword and spear. Allaah has established the religion of Islam with proof and evidence, and with the sword and spear, both together and inseparable.
This is some of the evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The evidence clearly indicates that the sword is one of the most important means that led to the spread of Islam.
1 – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“For had it not been that Allaah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allaah is mentioned much would surely, have been pulled down. Verily, Allaah will help those who help His (Cause). Truly, Allaah is All-Strong, All-Mighty”
[al-Hajj 22:40]
“And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)”
[al-Baqarah 2:251]
2 – Allaah has commanded us to prepare the means of fighting against the kuffaar and frightening them. He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allaah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allaah does know”
[al-Anfaal 8:60]
If Islam was only spread by peaceful means, what would the kuffaar have to be afraid of? Of mere words spoken on the tongue? In al-Saheehayn it is narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been supported with fear as far as a month’s journey.” Would the kuffaar be afraid of being told, “become Muslim, but if you do not then you are free to believe and do whatever you want”? or were they afraid of jihad and the imposition of the jizyah and being humiliated? That may make them enter Islam so that they may be spared this humiliation.
3 – When the Messenger called people to Islam, his call was accompanied by the sword, and he commanded his leaders to do likewise, so that when the people saw the serious of the Muslims in calling people to their religion, that dispelled any confusion.
Al-Bukhaari (3009) and Muslim (2406) narrated that Sahl ibn Sa’d (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said on the day of Khaybar: “Tomorrow I will give the banner to a man at whose hands victory will come, one who loves Allaah and His Messenger, and Allaah and His Messenger love him.” The people spent that night wondering which of them would be given the banner and all of them were hoping for it. Then he (the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ) said, “Where is ‘Ali?” It was said, “His eye is hurting.” So he spat in his eyes and made du’aa’ for him, and he was healed, as if there had not been anything wrong with him. Then he gave him the flag and he [‘Ali] said: “Shall I fight them so that they will be like us?” He said: “Go ahead, until you reach their encampment, then call them to Islam and tell them what they are obliged to do, for by Allaah if Allaah were to guide a man at your hands that would be better for you than having red camels [the best kind].”
So this call to Islam was accompanied by the force of arms.
Muslim (3261) narrated that Buraydah said: When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) appointed a commander to lead an army or a raiding party, he would advise him to fear Allaah with regard to himself and the Muslims with him, then he said: “Fight in the name of Allaah and for the sake of Allaah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allaah, fight but do not steal from the war booty (before it is shared out), betray, or mutilate. Do not kill children. If you meet your enemy of the mushrikeen, call them to three things, and whichever one of them they respond to, accept that from them and leave them alone. Then call them to Islam and if they respond, accept that from them and leave them alone. If they refuse but they pay the jizyah, then they have responded to you, so accept that from them and leave them alone. If they refuse then seek the help of Allaah and fight them…”
So the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told his commanders to call the kuffaar to Islam whilst wielding their swords over their heads. If they refused to become Muslim then they should pay the jizyah with humility. If they refused then there was nothing left for them but the sword – “If they refuse then seek the help of Allaah and fight them”
4 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I have been sent ahead of the Hour with the sword so that Allaah will be worshipped alone, and my provision has been placed in the shade of my spear, and humiliation has been decreed for those who go against my command, and whoever imitates a people is one of them.” Narrated by Ahmad, 4869; Saheeh al-Jaami’, 2831.
The fact that the sword and power were means of spreading Islam is not a sources of shame for Islam, rather it is one of its strengths and virtues, because that makes people adhere to that which will benefit them in this world and in the Hereafter. Many people are foolish and lacking in wisdom and knowledge, and if they are left to their own devices they will remain blinded to the truth, indulging in their whims and desires. So Allaah has prescribed jihad in order to bring them back to the truth and to that which will benefit them. Undoubtedly wisdom dictates that the fool should be prevented from doing that which will harm him, and should be forced to do that which will benefit him.
Al-Bukhaari (4557) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “ ‘You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind’ [Aal- Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning].” He said: “You are the best (i.e., the most beneficial) of people for mankind, you bring them in the chains that are around their necks until they enter Islam.” Can people be brought in chains except in the case of jihad??
This is something for which Islam deserves to be praised, not condemned. The defeatists should fear Allaah lest they distort this religion and cause it to become weak on the basis of the claim that it is a religion of peace. Yes, it is the religion of peace but in the sense of saving all of mankind from worshipping anything other than Allaah and submitting all of mankind to the rule of Allaah. This is the religion of Allaah, not the ideas of any person or the product of human thought, so that those who promote it should feel ashamed to state its ultimate goal, which is that all religion (worship) should be for Allaah alone. When the ideas that people follow are all produced by human beings and the systems and laws that control their lives are all made up by human beings, then in this case each idea and each system has the right to live safely within its own borders so long as it does not transgress the borders of others, so the various ideas and laws can co-exist and not try to destroy one another. But when there is a divine system and law, and alongside it there are human systems and laws, then the matter is fundamentally different, and the divine law has the right to remove the barriers and free people from enslavement to human beings…
Fiqh al-Da’wah by Sayyid Qutb, 217-222.
It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (12/14):
Islam spread by means of proof and evidence to those who listened to the message and responded to it, and it spread by means of force and the sword to those who were stubborn and arrogant, until they were overwhelmed and became no longer stubborn, and submitted to that reality.
And Allaah knows best.

Question number: 43087
Question
Did Islam spread through the sword?
Answer
All praise is due to Allah, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah:
We previously mentioned in question no. 34830 that jihad is of two types: offensive jihad (taking the initiative in fighting) and defensive jihad.
Undoubtedly, offensive jihad has a profound impact on propagating Islam and bringing people into Allah’s religion in multitudes. This is precisely why the hearts of Islam’s enemies continually tremble in fear of jihad.
The English-language ‘Muslim World Magazine’ stated:
“There should be a certain fear in the Western world, one reason being that since its emergence in Mecca, the number of Islam’s followers has never decreased; rather, it has always increased and spread. Moreover, Islam is not merely a religion; jihad is one of its principal pillars.”
Robert Bean said:
“The Muslims conquered the entire world before, and they can do so again.”
The Orientalists sought to malign Islam by claiming that it had spread through the sword. On the other hand, the Orientalist Thomas Arnold wrote his book ‘The Preaching of Islam’ with the purpose of eradicating the spirit of jihad from among Muslims and demonstrating that Islam spread not through the sword, but through peaceful preaching without coercion.
Muslims fell into this trap laid for them. When they heard the Orientalists’ accusation that Islam had spread through the sword, they said: “You are mistaken. Listen to the refutation from one of your own people—Thomas Arnold said such-and-such.”
Those Muslims who possess a defeatist mentality (defeatists) seek, in their attempt to defend Islam, to absolve it of this so-called ‘falsehood.’ Thus, they deny that Islam spread through the sword and claim that jihad has no place in Islam except in self-defence. In their view, offensive warfare has no place in Islam. This contradicts not only the statements of Muslim scholars but also the Quran and Sunnah directly.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah stated in his ‘Majmu al-Fatawa’ (28/263):
“The objective is that the entire religion should be devoted to Allah alone and that Allah’s word should be supreme. ‘Allah’s word’ is a comprehensive expression referring to His words contained in His Book. Allah said:
‘Indeed, We sent Our messengers with clear proofs and sent down with them the Book and the balance (justice) so that people might establish justice’ [Al-Hadid 57:25].
The purpose of sending the messengers and revealing the Book was that people might establish justice regarding the rights of Allah and the rights of creation. Allah then said:
‘And We sent down iron, in which there is great might (in warfare) and many benefits for people, so that Allah may test who supports Him (His religion) and His messengers without seeing Him’ [Al-Hadid 57:25].
Therefore, whoever deviates from the Book must be brought back through iron (that is, by the use of force). Thus, the soundness of the religion is established upon the Quran and the sword. It is narrated from Jabir ibn Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) commanded us to strike with this (pointing toward the sword) whoever turns away from this (pointing toward the Quran).”
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) stated in his ‘Al-Furusiyyah’ (page 18):
“Allah sent him (the Messenger, peace be upon him) before the Day of Resurrection with the guiding Book and the victorious sword, so that Allah alone might be worshipped without any partner, and his sustenance was placed beneath the shadow of his sword and spear. Allah established the religion of Islam through proof and evidence, and through the sword and spear; these two are inseparably joined.”
Several further proofs from the Quran and Sunnah are presented below, clearly indicating that the sword was one of the most important means of spreading Islam:
1. Allah says:
“Had Allah not repelled one group of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques—in which Allah’s name is frequently mentioned—would certainly have been destroyed. Surely Allah helps whoever supports Him (His religion). Surely Allah is All-Powerful and Almighty.” [Al-Hajj 22:40].
“Had Allah not repelled one group of people by means of another, the earth would have been filled with corruption. But Allah is most gracious to all worlds.” [Al-Baqarah 2:251].
2. Allah has instructed us to prepare the instruments of war against the disbelievers and to frighten them. He says:
“Prepare against them whatever forces and cavalry you can muster, by which you may frighten the enemies of Allah, your enemies, and others besides them whom you do not know but Allah knows.” [Al-Anfal 8:60].
If Islam had spread solely through peaceful means, what would the disbelievers have had to fear? Mere words? It is narrated in the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim) that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I have been aided by terror being cast into the hearts of my enemies from the distance of a month’s journey.” Were the disbelievers afraid merely upon hearing: “Become Muslims, but if you do not, you may believe or do whatever you wish”? Or were they afraid of jihad, the imposition of jizya, and humiliation? Perhaps it was this fear that compelled them to enter Islam so that they might escape that humiliation.
3. When the Messenger (peace be upon him) invited people to Islam, the sword accompanied that invitation. He gave the same instruction to his military commanders. When people saw how serious the Muslims were about inviting them to their religion, all their doubts disappeared.
Bukhari (3009) and Muslim (2406) narrate from Sahl ibn Sa’d (may Allah be pleased with him): On the day of the Battle of Khaybar, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Tomorrow I shall give the banner to a man through whom victory will come, who loves Allah and His Messenger, and whom Allah and His Messenger also love.” The following day, he summoned Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), gave him the banner, and said: “Proceed until you reach their courtyard; then invite them to Islam and inform them of what is obligatory upon them. By Allah! If Allah guides even one person through you, it will be better for you than possessing red camels (the Arabs’ most prized wealth).” Thus, the power of arms was also present alongside this invitation to Islam.
Muslim (3261) narrates from Buraydah: Whenever the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) appointed a commander over an army or a special expedition, he advised him to fear Allah regarding himself and the Muslims accompanying him. He would then say: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the cause of Allah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allah… When you encounter your polytheist enemies, invite them to three courses of action. Whichever one they accept, accept it from them and leave them alone. First, invite them to embrace Islam… If they refuse, ask them to pay jizya… If they also refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them…”
Thus, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) instructed his military commanders to invite the disbelievers to Islam while holding a sword over their heads. If they refused to become Muslims, they were to submit and pay jizya; if they refused even that, the sword would decide their fate—”If they refuse, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”
4. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I was sent with the sword before the Day of Resurrection so that Allah alone would be worshipped. My sustenance was placed beneath the shadow of my spear. Humiliation and disgrace have been decreed for those who disobey my command.” [Musnad Ahmad 4869, Sahih al-Jami’ 2831].
The sword and force being means of spreading Islam is not a matter of shame for Islam; rather, it is one of Islam’s strengths and virtues. This is because it compels people to adhere to what benefits them in this world and the Hereafter. Many people are foolish and lack knowledge and wisdom; if left to their own desires, they would remain blind to the truth and follow their passions. Allah therefore instituted jihad so that they might be brought back to the truth and to what benefits them. Wisdom undoubtedly requires that a foolish person should be prevented from harming himself and compelled to do what is beneficial to him.
It is narrated in Sahih Bukhari (4557) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that, while explaining the verse ‘You are the best nation brought forth for the benefit of humanity’ [Ali ‘Imran 3:110], he said: “You are the best people for humanity; you bring them with chains around their necks (as captives) until they enter Islam.” Is it possible to bring anyone in chains without jihad?
This is something for which Islam deserves praise, not condemnation. Defeatist Muslims should fear Allah, lest they distort and weaken this religion under the pretext of proving it to be a ‘religion of peace.’ Yes, it is a religion of peace—but in the sense that it rescues all humanity from worshipping anyone other than Allah and establishes genuine peace by bringing them under Allah’s rule. It is Allah’s religion, not an idea conceived by a human mind whose propagators should be ashamed to state its ultimate objective. Human-made ideologies or laws have the right to remain secure only so long as they do not transgress the boundaries of others. But when the matter is one of divine law versus man-made law, divine law has the right to remove every obstacle and liberate human beings from servitude to other human beings.
[Fiqh al-Da’wah: Sayyid Qutb, pages 217–222]
It is stated in ‘Fatawa al-Lajnah al-Da’imah’ (12/14):
“For those who heard the message and responded positively, Islam reached them through evidence and proof. As for those who were disobedient and arrogant, Islam reached them through force and the sword, until they were vanquished, abandoned their arrogance, and submitted to reality.”
Allah knows best.

Let us read another fatwa published on the relevant islamqa.info website concerning this issue, ^[12]

The Necessity of Destroying Statues
Question
Is it obligatory in Islam to destroy images, even if they constitute part of human heritage and the legacy of civilization? When the Companions conquered various countries, why did they not destroy the images they encountered in those conquered lands?
Answer
Praise be to Allah..
The evidence of the Sharia demonstrates that destroying statues is obligatory. Such evidence includes the following:
1. It is narrated from Abu al-Hayyaj al-Asadi (may Allah have mercy on him) that he said that Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) told him: “Shall I not send you on the same mission on which the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, sent me? Destroy every image you find and level every elevated grave.” (Sahih Muslim (969))
2. It is narrated from Amr ibn Abasah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he asked the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “With what have you been sent?” He said: “I have been sent to maintain ties of kinship, to break idols, to establish the oneness of Allah, and not to associate anything with Him.” (Sahih Muslim (832))
The obligation to destroy statues becomes even more emphatic when those statues are worshipped instead of Allah.
3. It is narrated from Jarir ibn Abdullah al-Bajali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, told him: “O Jarir! Will you not relieve me of Dhu al-Khalasa (a house belonging to the tribe of Khath’am that was called the Yemeni Kaaba)?” He said: “I then prepared an expedition of one hundred and fifty horsemen. I could not remain steady on my horse. I mentioned this to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. He struck me on the chest with his hand and said: اللهم ثبته واجعله هاديا مهديا (O Allah! Make him steadfast, and make him a guide who is rightly guided.)” The narrator said: “Jarir (may Allah be pleased with him) departed, reached that Kaaba, and burned it down. He then sent one of our men, whose kunyah was Abu Arta, to convey the good news to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. The man came to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and said: We have come to you after leaving that temple like a black camel smeared with tar because of disease.” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, then invoked blessings five times upon the horses and warriors of the Ahmas tribe. (Sahih al-Bukhari (3020) and Sahih Muslim (2476))
Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This hadith indicates that the Sharia prescribes the removal of anything by which people are tempted, whether it is a building or something else, such as a human being, an animal, or an inanimate object. (End)
4. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, sent an expedition under the leadership of Khalid ibn al-Walid (may Allah be pleased with him) to destroy the idol named al-Uzza.
5. He sent an expedition under the leadership of Sad ibn Zayd al-Ashhali (may Allah be pleased with him) to destroy the idol named Manat.
6. He sent an expedition under the leadership of Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) to destroy the idol named Suwa. All these expeditions took place after the conquest of Mecca.
(‘Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah’ (4/712, 776, 5/83) and ‘Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah’ (2/1186) by Dr. Ali al-Sallabi)
While discussing تصوير (the production of images, drawing/constructing pictures) in ‘Sharh Muslim,’ Imam al-Nawawi said: “The scholars reached a consensus that producing an image which casts a shadow is prohibited and that it must be defaced.” (End)
Images that cast shadows are three-dimensional images possessing bodily structures, like these statues.
The claim that the Companions did not destroy the idols in the conquered countries is merely a baseless assumption. It is inconceivable that the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would have left statues and idols intact, particularly since they were worshipped at that time.
If it is asked: How, then, did the conquering Companions leave intact these images of the pharaohs, the Phoenicians, and other such images?
The answer is that there are three possibilities concerning these statues:
First, these statues were situated in places so remote that the Companions did not reach them. For example, the Companions’ conquest of Egypt does not mean that they reached every part of Egypt.
Second, those statues may not have been visible. Rather, they were inside the dwellings of the pharaohs and others. The Prophet’s practice when passing through the dwellings of oppressors and people who had been punished was to proceed quickly. Indeed, entering such places was prohibited. It is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: “When you enter the land of those who were punished, enter only while weeping, lest what befell them should also befall you.” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said this while passing through the land of the people of al-Hijr, which was the dwelling place of the people of Thamud, the nation of Hud, peace be upon him.
Another narration in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim states: “If you cannot weep, do not enter their dwellings, lest what befell them should also befall you.”
What may reasonably be assumed regarding the Companions is that, even if they saw these people’s temples or dwellings, they did not enter them and therefore did not see what was inside.
This answers the possible objection concerning why the Companions did not destroy the pyramids and whatever was inside them. There is also the possibility that, at the time, the entrances to the pyramids were covered by heaps of sand.
Third, the statues visible today may then have been buried beneath the sand and invisible, may have been newly discovered, or may have been brought from very remote places that the Companions did not reach.
The historian al-Zirikli was asked about the pyramids, the Sphinx (the name of a statue), and similar things: did the Companions who entered Egypt see them? He replied that most of these statues had been covered by sand, particularly the Sphinx. (‘Shibh Jazirat al-Arab’ (4/1188))
Even if it is assumed that a particular statue was visible and not covered by sand, it must still be established that the Companions saw that statue and were capable of destroying it.
The reality is that the Companions were incapable of destroying certain statues. Some statues of this kind have taken twenty days to demolish despite the availability of machinery, equipment, explosives, and manpower—resources that did not exist in the era of the Companions.
Evidence that the Companions were incapable of destroying them is found in what Ibn Khaldun mentioned in his ‘Muqaddimah’ (page 383): Caliph al-Rashid once decided to demolish the palace of the Persian king. He began the work of demolishing it and, for this purpose, assembled manpower, collected axes, heated the palace with fire, and poured vinegar over it. Ultimately, however, he failed. Caliph al-Mamun likewise assembled elephants to demolish the pyramids of Egypt, but he too was unable to do so.
Nor is there any basis for justifying the preservation of these statues by arguing that they form part of human heritage. To the Quraysh and the other inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula who worshipped al-Lat, al-Uzza, Hubal, Manat, and other idols, those idols were also part of human heritage.
They were indeed heritage, but prohibited heritage that had to be destroyed. When the command of Allah and His Messenger arrives, a believer obeys it without delay. He does not reject the command of Allah and His Messenger with such feeble arguments. Allah the Exalted says: “The words of the believers, when they are called to Allah and His Messenger so that he may judge between them, are only that they say, ‘We hear and obey.’ And it is they who are successful.” (Surah al-Nur, verse 51)
We pray to Allah to enable all Muslims to act in accordance with what He loves and with which He is pleased.
Allah knows best.

At present, the opinion of the most prominent Islamic scholars on this matter is that when Muslims attain power, they must destroy all the idols and temples of non-Muslims. After thoroughly examining the Quran and Hadith, prominent Islamic scholars have reached this conclusion. A direct fatwa has also been issued on this matter. The fatwa is provided here, taken from the well-known fatwa website Islamweb – ^[13]

Demolishing idols in a non-Muslim country
Fatwa No: 190575
Fatwa Date:18-11-2012 – Muharram 5, 1434Email Print
Rating:
Question
Assalamu Alaikum, In the Quran, Allah says that Abraham destroyed the idols to teach the people that idols don’t have any power. In another place, Quran asks to follow the religion of Abraham. Is it required for a muslim living in a hindu country to destroy the idols. Will this not cause religious hatred and communal violence? Is it allowed to construct hindu temple in an islamic country?
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) is His slave and Messenger.
There is Islamic evidence that it is an obligation to demolish idols and statues, among which is the Hadeeth narrated by ‘Amr ibn ‘Abasah may Allaah be pleased with him that he asked the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ): ”What did Allaah send you with?” He sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) said: “He sent me to keep ties with kinship and demolish idols, and that Allaah Alone should be worshipped without associating anything with Him.” (Muslim)
Also, Abu Al-Hayyaaj Al-Asadi may Allaah be pleased with him said: “ ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib may Allaah be pleased with him said to me: “Shall I send you for a mission once the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) had sent me for: Do not leave an idol unless it is destroyed, nor you leave an up leveled grave unless you level it down to ground.” (Muslim)
However, this is restricted to the ability of the Muslims in doing so and them being safe from causing a greater harm. Our best example is that of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) as he used to go to the House of Allaah and perform Tawaaf (circumambulation around the Ka‘bah) while there were 360 idols around it but he did not cause harm to any of them until after the conquest of Makkah and after the Muslims became strong and the polytheists were no longer ruling over Makkah; it was then that the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) destroyed the idols. He sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) prodded the idols with a bow while saying: “The truth has come and falsehood has vanished.” The story is narrated in Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim.
The Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) used to take into consideration the prevailing circumstances and leave that which could lead to a greater evil despite the fact that it was permissible in principle. The evidence about this is the Hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah may Allaah be pleased with her who said: “I asked the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) about Al-Hijr (the area adjacent to the Ka’bah enclosed by a low semi-circular wall), is it from the House (of Allaah)? He sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) said: ’Yes.’ I said, ‘Why did they not include it in the House?’ He sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) said: ’Your people did not have enough resources to spend on it.’ I said: ’Why is the level of its door raised high?’ He sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) said: ’Your people did so, so that they would let whomever they want to enter it and prevent whomever they want from entering it. Your people are close to the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance; so I fear that they would reject if I included the Hijr in the House and make its door at a level with the ground.’ ” (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
Besides, what the Prophet Ibraaheem (Abraham) may Allaah exalt his mention did does not contradict what we have stated, as he did not do that matter until he was capable of doing it and being secure from being harmed. Ibn ‘Aashoor may Allaah have mercy upon him said while interpreting the verse (which means): {And (I swear) by Allaah, I will surely plan against your idols after you have turned and gone away.} (Quran 21:57): “He conditioned that his plan (agaist their idols) be after they depart in order to indicate that he will inflict harm on the idols as soon as he will be able to do so. This proves his strong determination to change evil, because taking the initiative to change evil although it is by hand (physically), is a rank of strong determination, but he would not be able to do so in the presence of idolaters. So, if he were to try to demolish it in their presence, then his act will be in vain. What is meant from changing evil: is to remove it as much as possible, so removing it by hand can only be done with the existence of the ability to do so.”
Finally, it should be noted that it is not permissible for the Muslims to allow non-Muslims to establish one of their temples in a Muslim country, let alone the Muslim country establishing it itself. The conditions that ‘Umar may Allaah be pleased with him put on the non-Muslims living safely in a Muslim country under Muslim rule included: “….that we will not erect in our city any church….”
Allaah Knows best.

A sense-for-sense translation of the above fatwa is given below (translator—Koyes Ali)—

Question:
Assalamu alaikum. Allah has stated in the Quran that by breaking the idols, Ibrahim sought to make people understand that idols possess no power. Elsewhere in the Quran, people are instructed to follow the religion introduced by Ibrahim. Now, is it obligatory for Muslims living in a Hindu country to break idols? Would this not spread religious hatred and lead to communal terrorism? Is it permissible to establish a Hindu temple in an Islamic country?
Answer:
Among the information we find concerning the Islamic instruction to break idols is a hadith narrated by ‘Amr b. ‘Abasa Sulami. He asked the Prophet, “What is that which you have been sent with?” The Prophet said, “I have been sent to join ties of relationship (with kindness and affection), to break the idols, and to proclaim the oneness of Allah (in a manner that) nothing is to be associated with Him.” (Muslim)
Again, Abu’l-Hayyaj al-Asadi reported that ‘Ali b. Abu Talib said to him, “Should I not send you on the same mission as Allah’s Messenger sent me? Do not leave an image without obliterating it, or a high grave without levelling it.” (Muslim)
However, this has now been restricted for Muslims so that they may avoid a major danger. The best example is that the Prophet regularly visited Allah’s House and performed tawaf. Various idols stood all around it, but he did not damage any of them before the conquest of Mecca. Later, when the Muslims had become powerful and the polytheists had grown weak, the Prophet broke the idols in one sweep and said, “Truth has come and falsehood has vanished.” This is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
The Prophet assessed the circumstances before making decisions and attached greater importance to the potential harm arising from an action than to its ideological dimension. We find in the hadith narrated by ‘Aisha: “I asked the Prophet about the wall (outside the Ka‘ba). ‘Is it regarded as part of the Ka‘ba?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Then why didn’t the people include it in the Ka‘ba?’ He said, ‘(Because) your people ran short of money.’ I asked, ‘Then why is its gate so high?’ He replied, ‘Your people did so in order to admit to it whom they would and forbid whom they would. Were your people not still close to the period of ignorance, and were I not afraid that their hearts might deny my action, then surely I would include the wall in the Ka‘ba and make its gate touch the ground.’”
Our argument is not inconsistent with what the Prophet Ibrahim did. For he acted only after acquiring the necessary capability and remained safe from harm. Ibn Ashur narrates: “By Allah! I will surely plot against your idols after you have turned your backs and gone away.”
He stipulated that the destruction of idols should be undertaken only when one has the capability to do so.
This proves that the Prophet was firmly committed to changing evil, because his initiative to break the idols with his own hands confirms his resolute intention. But he could not do so in the presence of the idolaters, because that might have caused the effort to fail. Changing evil means reducing it as much as possible and destroying it with one’s own hands. That is possible only when one has the capability.
Finally, it is impossible for a Muslim to accept the establishment of any non-Muslim temple in a Muslim country or to allow any Muslim country to establish one. Under the Islamic rule of Hazrat Umar, non-Muslims were granted security on the condition: “We shall not permit any church to be built in our cities.”

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan: The Purpose of Jihad Is to Eliminate Shirk and Bring People into Islam

On the question of whether offensive or offensive jihad existed at all in classical Islam, the statements of Salih bin Fawzan al-Fawzan—one of contemporary Saudi Arabia’s most influential Salafi jurists and the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia—are particularly important. In the Kitab al-Jihad section of Sharh Zad al-Mustaqni‘, he first draws a direct distinction between qital al-daf‘, or defensive warfare, and qital al-talab, or proactively initiated offensive warfare. According to him, when Muslims are weak and lack the ability to conduct qital al-talab, they will engage in defensive warfare; but when Muslims possess strength and capability, they will conduct qital al-talab against the disbelievers—to exalt the word of Allah and establish tawhid on earth. Immediately afterward, he directly rejects as “a slander against Islam” the claims of those who present Islam as an unconditionally pacifist religion. Let us read his statement:

Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan says:
“Those among failed writers or the ignorant who say, ‘There is no warfare in Islam; it is not a religion of war. Rather, it is entirely a religion of peace and tolerance. It deals peacefully with people and leaves them in whatever condition they are’—this is a slander against Islam. Islam is the truth, and everything other than Islam is falsehood. Therefore, falsehood must be removed and the truth established. This is accomplished by calling people to Allah and then waging jihad in the path of Allah against whoever stubbornly resists.
Yes, Islam is not a religion of unjust aggression, nor is it a religion of unjust oppression. Jihad is neither aggression nor oppression. Rather, it is for the welfare of humankind—with the purpose of eliminating shirk and bringing them into Islam; Islam is their true welfare. It is intended to bring them out of darkness into light, from the worship of Satan and the worship of tyrants and taghuts to the worship of Allah, who created them to worship Him alone. This is the purpose of jihad in the path of Allah. It is therefore a higher and still greater objective.”

^[14]

The significance of this statement is not merely that Fawzan acknowledges the existence of jihad. He explicitly rejects the very notion that Islam is an unconditionally pacifist system that allows adherents of other religions to remain undisturbed in their own beliefs. Within the structure of his argument, Islam is true and other beliefs are false; therefore, an attempt will first be made to eliminate that “falsehood” through da‘wah, and jihad will be used if obstinate resistance persists. More explicitly, among the objectives of jihad he directly mentions both “eliminating shirk” and “bringing them into Islam”—in Arabic, إزالة الشرك وإدخالهم في الإسلام. Consequently, defining offensive jihad solely as self-defence, border defence, or warfare to rescue an attacked Muslim population conflicts with Fawzan’s own explanation. Here, one declared religious objective of military jihad is to remove existing non-Islamic systems of belief and establish the authority of Islam and tawhid. Let us examine what he says in this regard:

Statement: Question: Has any opinion been reported that the verse containing the words of Allah, Glorified and Exalted—“There is no compulsion in religion” [2:256]—was abrogated (naskh) by the verses concerning jihad?
Answer: Yes, this is the opinion of some mufassirs. According to them, this verse was abrogated by the verses concerning jihad.
Another opinion is that this verse applies specifically to the People of the Book. “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) means that when the People of the Book pay jizya, they will be left to practise their religion.

The Ruling on Killing Apostates, Those Who Refuse Zakat, and Those Who Do Not Pray

In Islam, the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah al-Baqarah: 256) is often promoted as a universal humanitarian message. Yet a deeper examination of Islamic law, or the discipline of fiqh, reveals that this so-called freedom is merely a theoretical ornament. In particular, the death penalty prescribed for leaving Islam constitutes an extreme form of coercion against an individual’s fundamental rights. When the path into an ideology is open but the path out is barred on pain of bloodshed, any claim of “freedom of choice” is nothing more than a farce. At the same time, even the slightest criticism of the Prophet Muhammad is recognised under Islamic Sharia as an offence warranting extrajudicial killing.

Historically, the Ridda Wars during the rule of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, were the first major example of this coercion. Those who merely refused to pay zakat or wished to depart from the state-controlled religious system were subjected to armed campaigns and killed en masse—something inconceivable under any modern system of justice. Likewise, a substantial section of Islamic scholars has issued rulings prescribing death even for those who abandon prayer merely out of personal laziness. This demonstrates that worship in Islam is not merely an expression of love for Allah but a compulsory duty to be performed under state pressure; even in the case of children, direct instructions have been given to beat them if they do not pray and compel them to practise religion.

Islamists often argue that killing an apostate is not religious coercion but a punishment for “treason.” This argument, however, is extremely weak: how can a mere change in personal belief, without involvement in any kind of political conspiracy, constitute treason? In essence, making personal conscience and peaceful apostasy legally punishable offences amounts to structural terror imposed upon belief—people are confined within the fold of a particular religion through the threat of punishment. Proclaiming the slogan “there is no compulsion” on the one hand while retaining the Islamic ruling prescribing death for those who do not pray on the other exposes a profound moral and logical contradiction within Islam. To gain a clearer understanding of this issue, let us watch a video by the renowned Bangladeshi Islamic scholar Shaykh Dr Muzaffar ibn Muhsin:

Non-Muslim Citizens in a Sharia State (Video)

In a so-called ideal Islamic state, the status of non-Muslims is defined not merely as that of ‘protected citizens,’ but as ‘subjugated dhimmis.’ The objective of Sharia law is not merely to collect taxes from non-Muslims, but to keep them in a socially inferior and humiliating position. Provisions such as seizing them by the neck and shaking them while collecting the jizya tax, or keeping them physically lowered, are fundamentally intended to make them understand psychologically that they are second-class citizens. In a modern democratic state, where the equal dignity of every citizen is recognized, this Islamic ‘dhimmi system’ is a discriminatory arrangement. It subjects non-Muslims to a form of psychological pressure, as though compelling them to embrace Islam in order to escape social disgrace. This cannot, by any means, be called ‘religious freedom.’

Let us watch a video on this subject, in which an Islamic scholar from Arabia teaches how non-Muslims must be humiliated and degraded at every step in a Sharia-based state so that they are compelled to embrace Islam,

The Uncensored Tafsir of Surah At-Tawbah (Video)

Although modern-day Islamists use the peaceful verses of the Quran as a shield, classical exegetes never engaged in such concealment. The revelation of Surah At-Tawbah, one of the last major surahs of the Quran, demonstrates that when the power of Islam increases, its earlier policy of ‘tolerance’ is abrogated, or rendered ‘mansukh.’ According to renowned mufassirs, verses 5 and 73 of Surah At-Tawbah—known as the ‘verses of the sword’—abrogated several hundred earlier peaceful verses. This indicates that the peace of the Meccan period was essentially a strategic position resulting from the Muslims’ weakness. As soon as they acquired state power and military strength in Medina, the final command to spread the religion through ‘jihad’ and ‘qital’ arrived. This shifting policy renders hollow Islam’s purported claim to be an ‘eternal religion of peace.’ Now let us listen to a fearless and forthright sermon on Surah At-Tawbah,

Was the Prophet a Militant? (Video)

Many elements of what we understand in modern times as ‘militancy’ or ‘terrorism’ can be observed in the military campaigns of that period. ‘I have been commanded to fight against people until they testify…’—this statement of the Messenger of Allah does not refer to a defensive war; rather, it presents a doctrine of perpetual aggression. When the founder of a religion himself declares that his mission is to subjugate others through warfare, that religion no longer remains confined to spirituality; it becomes an imperial power. The ‘general amnesty’ said to have been granted to the idolaters after the conquest of Mecca was, in fact, a conditional amnesty for a brief period—it was subsequently replaced by the policy of embracing Islam, leaving the country, or facing death. This coercive position is the principal inspiration for extremist groups in the contemporary world. Let us listen to another sermon,

Falsehoods About Jihad (Video)

To gain acceptance in the Western world, contemporary so-called moderate Muslims and Islamic thinkers make desperate attempts to define the word ‘jihad’ solely as a ‘spiritual struggle.’ Yet an analysis of Islam’s primary texts and the jurisprudential rulings of the four imams shows that jihad means armed warfare (qital) against the kafirs. In classical Islam, ‘offensive jihad,’ or aggressive warfare, was regarded as more meritorious than ‘defensive jihad,’ or defensive warfare. By concealing this truth, Islamists resort to a form of ‘taqiyya,’ or religious deception. Denying the military obligation to impose Islam upon non-Muslims or subjugate them under an Islamic state is effectively equivalent to denying thirteen centuries of Islamic history. Jihad is not a path to peace; rather, it is an instrument for establishing imperial political domination. Let us now listen to the remarks of another English-speaking Arab scholar,

The Hadith’s Clear Account

A review of the early history of Islam and the reign of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, shows that there was no place for ‘personal choice’ or ‘individual liberty.’ After the death of the Messenger of Allah, when various Arab tribes refused to pay zakat or sought to leave the religion, they were branded ‘apostates,’ and the horrific massacres carried out against them constitute a bloody chapter in Islamic history. According to the accounts in sahih hadiths, the Messenger of Allah’s clear instruction was that the property and lives of those who did not recite the kalima were not safe. In other words, reciting the kalima or embracing Islam was the only means of preserving one’s life. When Usama ibn Zayd killed a man even after he had recited the kalima, the Messenger of Allah’s displeasure was not merely because he had committed an injustice; rather, the Messenger of Allah’s reasoning was that after reciting the kalima, the man had legally become a ‘Muslim,’ and it was not our task to investigate what was in his heart. In other words, even ‘ostensible’ or ‘coerced’ allegiance is legally valid under an Islamic state.

That is, Islam directly compels people to convert by force; otherwise, it imposes the humiliating jizya tax. Let us now read a few hadiths ^{[15] [16]} –

Reference : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2607
In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 2
English translation : Vol. 5, Book 38, Hadith 2607
Chapter : What Has Been Related About “I Have Been Ordered To Fight The People Until They Say: La Ilaha Illallah”
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
said: “When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) died and Abu Bakr became the Khalifah after him, whoever disbelieved from the Arabs disbelieved, so Umar bin Al-Khattab said to Abu Bakr: ‘How will you fight the people while the Messenger of Allah has said: ‘I have been ordered to fight the people until they say La Ilaha Illallah, and if they say that, then their blood and wealth will be protected from me, except what it makes obligatory upon them, and their reckoning is with Allah?’ So Abu Bakr said: ‘By Allah I will fight whoever differentiates between Salat and Zakat. For indeed, Zakat is the right due upon wealth. And by Allah! If they withhold even (camel) tethers which they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) I will fight them for withholding it.’ So Umar bin Al-Khattab said: ‘By Allah! I saw that Allah had opened Abu Bakr’s chest to fighting, so I knew that it was correct.’“
Arabic : حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ ، أَخْبَرَنِي عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ، قَالَ لَمَّا تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَاسْتُخْلِفَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ بَعْدَهُ كَفَرَ مَنْ كَفَرَ مِنَ الْعَرَبِ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ كَيْفَ تُقَاتِلُ النَّاسَ وَقَدْ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَقُولُوا لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَمَنْ قَالَ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ عَصَمَ مِنِّي مَالَهُ وَنَفْسَهُ إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهِ وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ ” ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَاللَّهِ لأُقَاتِلَنَّ مَنْ فَرَّقَ بَيْنَ الزَّكَاةِ وَالصَّلاَةِ فَإِنَّ الزَّكَاةَ حَقُّ الْمَالِ وَاللَّهِ لَوْ مَنَعُونِي عِقَالاً كَانُوا يُؤَدُّونَهُ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم لَقَاتَلْتُهُمْ عَلَى مَنْعِهِ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا هُوَ إِلاَّ أَنْ رَأَيْتُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ شَرَحَ صَدْرَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ لِلْقِتَالِ فَعَرَفْتُ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ‏.‏
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

Reference : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2608
In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 3
English translation : Vol. 5, Book 38, Hadith 2608
Chapter : What Has Been Related About The State of The Prophet (SAW): “I Have Been Ordered To Fight The People Until They Say La Ilaha Illallah And Establish The Salah”
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness to La Ilaha Illallah, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, and they face our Qiblah, eat our slaughtered (meat), and perform our Salat. And if they do that, then their blood and wealth will be unlawful to us, except with its due right. For them shall be whatever is for the Muslims, and they shall be obliged with that which the Muslims are obliged.”
Arabic : حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ الطَّالْقَانِيُّ ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ ، أَخْبَرَنَا حُمَيْدٌ الطَّوِيلُ ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَأَنْ يَسْتَقْبِلُوا قِبْلَتَنَا وَيَأْكُلُوا ذَبِيحَتَنَا وَأَنْ يُصَلُّوا صَلاَتَنَا فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْنَا دِمَاؤُهُمْ وَأَمْوَالُهُمْ إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهَا لَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ ” ‏.‏
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

Let us examine an example of how the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad attacked infidel kingdoms and what they said during such attacks ^{[17] [18]}

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3159, 3160
In-book reference : Book 58, Hadith 3
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 53, Hadith 386
Chapter : Al-Jizya taken from the Dhimmi
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: `Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, `Umar said to him. “I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.” Al-Hurmuzan said, “Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau.”
Bakr and Ziyad both narrated from Jubair bin Haiya: So, `Umar sent us to Khosrau, appointing An-Nu`man bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:—‘Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.’” (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Nu`man for delaying the attack and) An-Nu‘man said to Al-Mughira, “If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah’s Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday).”
Arabic : حَدَّثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ الرَّقِّيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا الْمُعْتَمِرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ الثَّقَفِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا بَكْرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْمُزَنِيُّ، وَزِيَادُ بْنُ جُبَيْرٍ، عَنْ جُبَيْرِ بْنِ حَيَّةَ، قَالَ بَعَثَ عُمَرُ النَّاسَ فِي أَفْنَاءِ الأَمْصَارِ يُقَاتِلُونَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، فَأَسْلَمَ الْهُرْمُزَانُ فَقَالَ إِنِّي مُسْتَشِيرُكَ فِي مَغَازِيَّ هَذِهِ‏.‏ قَالَ نَعَمْ، مَثَلُهَا وَمَثَلُ مَنْ فِيهَا مِنَ النَّاسِ مِنْ عَدُوِّ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مَثَلُ طَائِرٍ لَهُ رَأْسٌ وَلَهُ جَنَاحَانِ وَلَهُ رِجْلاَنِ، فَإِنْ كُسِرَ أَحَدُ الْجَنَاحَيْنِ نَهَضَتِ الرِّجْلاَنِ بِجَنَاحٍ وَالرَّأْسُ، فَإِنْ كُسِرَ الْجَنَاحُ الآخَرُ نَهَضَتِ الرِّجْلاَنِ وَالرَّأْسُ، وَإِنْ شُدِخَ الرَّأْسُ ذَهَبَتِ الرِّجْلاَنِ وَالْجَنَاحَانِ وَالرَّأْسُ، فَالرَّأْسُ كِسْرَى، وَالْجَنَاحُ قَيْصَرُ، وَالْجَنَاحُ الآخَرُ فَارِسُ، فَمُرِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَلْيَنْفِرُوا إِلَى كِسْرَى‏.‏ وَقَالَ بَكْرٌ وَزِيَادٌ جَمِيعًا عَنْ جُبَيْرِ بْنِ حَيَّةَ قَالَ فَنَدَبَنَا عُمَرُ وَاسْتَعْمَلَ عَلَيْنَا النُّعْمَانَ بْنَ مُقَرِّنٍ، حَتَّى إِذَا كُنَّا بِأَرْضِ الْعَدُوِّ، وَخَرَجَ عَلَيْنَا عَامِلُ كِسْرَى فِي أَرْبَعِينَ أَلْفًا، فَقَامَ تُرْجُمَانٌ فَقَالَ لِيُكَلِّمْنِي رَجُلٌ مِنْكُمْ‏.‏ فَقَالَ الْمُغِيرَةُ سَلْ عَمَّا شِئْتَ‏.‏ قَالَ مَا أَنْتُمْ قَالَ نَحْنُ أُنَاسٌ مِنَ الْعَرَبِ كُنَّا فِي شَقَاءٍ شَدِيدٍ وَبَلاَءٍ شَدِيدٍ، نَمَصُّ الْجِلْدَ وَالنَّوَى مِنَ الْجُوعِ، وَنَلْبَسُ الْوَبَرَ وَالشَّعَرَ، وَنَعْبُدُ الشَّجَرَ وَالْحَجَرَ، فَبَيْنَا نَحْنُ كَذَلِكَ، إِذْ بَعَثَ رَبُّ السَّمَوَاتِ وَرَبُّ الأَرَضِينَ تَعَالَى ذِكْرُهُ وَجَلَّتْ عَظَمَتُهُ إِلَيْنَا نَبِيًّا مِنْ أَنْفُسِنَا، نَعْرِفُ أَبَاهُ وَأُمَّهُ، فَأَمَرَنَا نَبِيُّنَا رَسُولُ رَبِّنَا صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ نَقَاتِلَكُمْ حَتَّى تَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَحْدَهُ أَوْ تُؤَدُّوا الْجِزْيَةَ، وَأَخْبَرَنَا نَبِيُّنَا صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنْ رِسَالَةِ رَبِّنَا أَنَّهُ مَنْ قُتِلَ مِنَّا صَارَ إِلَى الْجَنَّةِ فِي نَعِيمٍ لَمْ يَرَ مِثْلَهَا قَطُّ، وَمَنْ بَقِيَ مِنَّا مَلَكَ رِقَابَكُمْ‏.‏ فَقَالَ النُّعْمَانُ رُبَّمَا أَشْهَدَكَ اللَّهُ مِثْلَهَا مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَلَمْ يُنَدِّمْكَ وَلَمْ يُخْزِكَ، وَلَكِنِّي شَهِدْتُ الْقِتَالَ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ إِذَا لَمْ يُقَاتِلْ فِي أَوَّلِ النَّهَارِ انْتَظَرَ حَتَّى تَهُبَّ الأَرْوَاحُ وَتَحْضُرَ الصَّلَوَاتُ‏.‏
Narrator: Jubair bin Haiya

Explanation of the Hadith Commanding Qital

Let us learn the explanation of this hadith—“I have been commanded to engage in qital until they say la ilaha”—from a scholar’s hadith lesson.

A Clear Account in the Tafsir Literature

Now let us examine directly from the tafsir literature what the Islamic ruling concerning the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” actually is. For this purpose, it is necessary to examine the circumstances of revelation and the detailed exegesis of this Quranic verse. The verse stating that there is no coercion in Islam is verse 256 of Surah al-Baqarah. The renowned tafsir Ahkam al-Quran states that it was abrogated by verses 5 and 73 of Surah al-Tawbah, a surah revealed toward the end of the Quranic revelation—that is, by the verses concerning jihad. At the same time, it is necessary to consult the tafsir in order to understand properly what is actually meant here ^[19]—

Allah’s words,
Arabic : لَآ إِكۡرَاهَ فِي ٱلدِّينِۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشۡدُ مِنَ ٱلۡغَيِّۚ فَمَن يَكۡفُرۡ بِٱلطَّٰغُوتِ وَيُؤۡمِنۢ بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسۡتَمۡسَكَ بِٱلۡعُرۡوَةِ ٱلۡوُثۡقَىٰ لَا ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَاۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ ٢٥٦
“Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.”
— Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:256
Dahhak, Suddi, and Sulayman ibn Mirsa said, This verse was abrogated by the following verse:
Arabic : يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِيُّ جَٰهِدِ ٱلۡكُفَّارَ وَٱلۡمُنَٰفِقِينَ وَٱغۡلُظۡ عَلَيۡهِمۡۚ وَمَأۡوَىٰهُمۡ جَهَنَّمُۖ وَبِئۡسَ ٱلۡمَصِيرُ ٧٣
“O Prophet! Struggle against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm with them. Hell will be their home. What an evil destination!” — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran, Surah At-Tawbah 9:73
And by the following verse:
Arabic : فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلۡأَشۡهُرُ ٱلۡحُرُمُ فَٱقۡتُلُواْ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكِينَ حَيۡثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمۡ وَخُذُوهُمۡ وَٱحۡصُرُوهُمۡ وَٱقۡعُدُواْ لَهُمۡ كُلَّ مَرۡصَدٖۚ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمۡۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٞ رَّحِيمٞ ٥
“But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺ wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran, Surah At-Tawbah 9:5
Al-Hasan and Qatadah said that the statement, “There is no compulsion in religion,” applies specifically to those among the People of the Book who are prepared to pay jizya. It does not apply to the polytheists of Arabia in general, for they did not agree to submit and pay jizya. Either Islam must be accepted from them, or the sword will fall upon them.
It has also been said in this regard that the verse means: do not say of those who accepted Islam after the war that they accepted Islam as a result of coercion.
Abu Bakr said: There is no scope for compulsion in religion. This is phrased as a statement of information, but it is essentially a command. It is possible that this verse was revealed before the command concerning the polytheists was revealed. Consequently, at that time, the statement applied to all disbelievers. Such as these words of Allah:
Arabic : وَلَا تَسۡتَوِي ٱلۡحَسَنَةُ وَلَا ٱلسَّيِّئَةُۚ ٱدۡفَعۡ بِٱلَّتِي هِيَ أَحۡسَنُ فَإِذَا ٱلَّذِي بَيۡنَكَ وَبَيۡنَهُۥ عَدَٰوَةٞ كَأَنَّهُۥ وَلِيٌّ حَمِيمٞ ٣٤
“Good and evil cannot be equal. Respond ˹to evil˺ with what is best, then the one you are in a feud with will be like a close friend.”
— Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran, Surah Fussilat 41:34
And these words of Allah:
Arabic : ٱدۡعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِٱلۡحِكۡمَةِ وَٱلۡمَوۡعِظَةِ ٱلۡحَسَنَةِۖ وَجَٰدِلۡهُم بِٱلَّتِي هِيَ أَحۡسَنُۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعۡلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِۦ وَهُوَ أَعۡلَمُ بِٱلۡمُهۡتَدِينَ ١٢٥
“Invite ˹all˺ to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord ˹alone˺ knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is ˹rightly˺ guided.”
— Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran, Surah An-Nahl 16:125
Allah’s words:
Arabic : وَعِبَادُ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَمۡشُونَ عَلَى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ هَوۡنٗا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ ٱلۡجَٰهِلُونَ قَالُواْ سَلَٰمٗا ٦٣
“The ˹true˺ servants of the Most Compassionate are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the foolish address them ˹improperly˺, they only respond with peace.”
— Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran, Surah Al-Furqan 25:63
During the early period of Islam, warfare was prohibited. Eventually, once the task of presenting Islam to the disbelievers had been completed and the truthfulness of the Prophet had been established, yet they continued to act with hostility, the Muslims were commanded to fight them. At that point, the statement “There is no scope for compulsion in religion” was abrogated with respect to the polytheists of Arabia. The verse was revealed:
Arabic : فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الْأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِنْ تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ ٥
“But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺ wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” — Dr. Mustafa Khattab, The Clear Quran, Surah At-Tawbah 9:5
There are many other verses containing the command to fight the polytheists. The application of the verse in question therefore remained limited to the People of the Book; that is, they could not be compelled to accept the religion. The People of the Book, too, would be spared only if they agreed to submit and pay jizya. They would then remain dhimmis under the Muslims. They would be under Islamic rule.
The hadith evidence for this is that the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him) himself was not prepared to accept anything other than Islam from the polytheists of Arabia. Otherwise, he wielded the sword against them.

A Clear Account in a Book of Aqidah

An analysis of books written by renowned Islamic scholars makes clear just how rigid and coercive Islam’s legal framework, or ‘Aqidah,’ is beneath its spiritual claims. According to classical Aqidah and fiqh, ‘faith’ is not a matter of personal preference; rather, it resembles a legal contract—one that is easy to enter but from which the path of exit is blocked. This book states with great clarity that if a ‘harbi,’ or belligerent disbeliever, is made to accept Islam through the threat of the sword or even the threat of death, that conversion will be regarded as valid and final under worldly law. Here, greater importance is attached to ‘obedience’ than to an individual’s ‘inner conviction’ or ‘sincerity.’ This absence of ‘consent’ or ‘Consent’ in matters of faith demonstrates that Islam essentially functions as an instrument for maintaining a political and social order. Declaring someone a Muslim during childhood or as a prisoner of war, and subsequently preventing that person from leaving the religion, constitutes a flagrant violation of the fundamental right to determine one’s own identity ^[20] –

By pointing toward the sky, she indicated that you are the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “You may free her.” (Hadith no. 11)
Words and actions that only a Muslim can say or perform, and through which it becomes clear that the person in question has entered Islam, will be regarded as ‘acceptance of Islam.’ Examples include performing salah like Muslims, undertaking the Hajj, and so forth. However, if it is established that through such acts the person has not abandoned erroneous beliefs and entered pure Islam, but is instead performing them while remaining a disbeliever in accordance with their own religious beliefs (as the Qadianis do today), or is doing so in jest, then these acts will not be regarded as acceptance of Islam in that person’s case. The person will not be regarded as a Muslim until they use an expression indicating that they are abandoning their own beliefs and returning to the correct religious beliefs preached by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and followed by the noble Companions.
The Ruling on Compelling Someone to Accept Islam
Compelling someone to accept Islam is an important question of fiqh. All Islamic scholars have agreed that if disbelievers who have no treaty with Muslims (harbis), or who are not dhimmi disbelievers paying jizya, are compelled to accept Islam through the threat of death or by some other means, their conversion will be accepted. In other words, if such a person later wishes to renounce the religion after accepting Islam in this manner, they will be declared an ‘apostate’ and sentenced to death. The evidence concerning this is the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him):
“I have been commanded to fight the people until they say—‘There is no god but Allah.’” (Bukhari and Muslim)
When they say this, their blood and property will be regarded as protected. A lengthy hadith in Sahih Muslim states that when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) dispatched a commander on an expedition, he would advise him by saying: “Call them to three things. Whichever of them they accept, accept it from them.” These three matters are:
a. Accepting Islam
b. Paying the jizya tax
c. Fighting
Therefore, those who are compelled through warfare to accept Islam will be regarded as Muslims under worldly law. The same principle is also demonstrated by the incident involving Usama ibn Zayd. The disbeliever whom Usama (may Allah be pleased with him) was about to kill suddenly recited the kalima. Usama thought that the man had accepted Islam out of fear of the sword and that his conversion was therefore unacceptable. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), however, severely reprimanded him for this. The clear implication is that if someone whose killing is lawful is threatened with death and enters Islam out of fear, that person’s acceptance of Islam will be valid. If they subsequently abandon Islam, they will be regarded as an apostate. (Hadith nos. 12 and 13)
Differences of Opinion Concerning Harbis and Dhimmis
The commentary on Kanz al-Daqa’iq states: “There is ijma (consensus) that if a disbeliever without a treaty (harbi) is compelled to accept Islam, the conversion will be valid.” (Tabyin al-Haqa’iq)
It is not permissible to compel those who have treaties with Muslims—such as dhimmis (Hadith no. 14), musta’mans (Hadith no. 15), or mu’ahids (Hadith no. 16)—to accept Islam, and the Ummah has reached ijma on this matter. However, if someone compels such persons and they accept Islam, Islamic scholars differ over whether that conversion will be valid:
Hanbali and Shafi‘i schools: In their view, it will not be regarded as acceptance of Islam unless, after the compulsion has ended, the person voluntarily remains within Islam. (Hadith no. 17; Al-Mughni)
Hanafi school: According to the accepted opinion, it will be regarded as acceptance of Islam, and the person will not be permitted to return to disbelief. (Tabyin al-Haqa’iq)
Here, the first position (the Shafi‘i and Hanbali view) appears to be more correct.
Muslim Identity by Descent and Circumstance
A person may also be regarded as a Muslim in the following ways:
1. Through Muslim Parents:
All Islamic scholars agree that a child born to Muslim parents will be regarded as a Muslim. Likewise, if a disbelieving couple becomes Muslim, their minor children will also become Muslims. If one of the parents is Muslim, the child will be regarded as Muslim. (Bukhari; Fath al-Bari—3/220) The evidence for this is the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): “Islam is above all, and nothing can prevail over Islam.” (Hadith no. 18; al-Daraqutni)
2. In the Case of a Child Captured in War:
When a child is regarded as Muslim by virtue of being captured in war during childhood, the child’s wishes carry no significance. This, too, is a compulsory method.
Interpretation of the Verse “There Is No Compulsion in Religion”
Many thinkers today claim that Islam allows no one to be compelled. They cite verse 256 of Surah al-Baqarah (“There is no compulsion in religion”) or verse 99 of Surah Yunus. According to Islamic scholars, however, these verses must be understood in conjunction with other evidence and the practices of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
The verse “There is no compulsion in religion” applies only to those disbelievers who have agreed to pay jizya. But the ruling of compulsion applies to those who refuse to pay jizya or who have become apostates. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Bukhari) Therefore, each verse must be applied in its proper context; compulsion has not been categorically prohibited in every case. (Hadith no. 29)
Footnotes:
(11) The hadith was narrated by Imam Abu Dawud, and he did not declare its chain of transmission weak, meaning that he considered the hadith acceptable. Al-Haythami stated in Majma‘ al-Zawa’id, “The narrators of this hadith are trustworthy.” Shaykh al-Albani, however, classified the hadith as weak.
(12) Sahih Bukhari and Muslim; the hadith was cited previously.
(13) Ibn al-Arabi states, “When a Muslim encounters a disbeliever with whom there is no treaty, it is lawful for him to kill that person.” (Ahkam al-Qur’an). Mulla Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi narrates from Imam al-Khattabi, “The fundamental principle regarding the blood of disbelievers is that it is lawful (ibahah).” (Mirqat al-Mafatih). In other words, in the absence of a treaty, their blood is not inviolable.
(14) Disbelievers who reside under the authority of an Islamic state by paying the tax (jizya).
(15) Disbelievers who, with the authorities’ permission, take refuge in an Islamic state for a brief period in order to learn about Islam or conduct business.
(16) Disbelievers who remain in their own territory while entering into a truce with Muslims.
(17) If a dhimmi or musta’man is compelled, their Islam will not be considered valid unless they voluntarily remain within it. (Al-Mughni).
(18) Al-Daraqutni, Bulugh al-Maram. Imam Bukhari cited the hadith in mawquf form without a chain of transmission. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Shaykh al-Albani classified the hadith as ‘hasan.’ (Fath al-Bari—3/220; Irwa’ al-Ghalil—1268).
(28) This matter will be discussed in detail in the next chapter, insha-Allah.
(29) Amir al-Mu’minin Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) and other Companions stipulated that non-Muslims would not be permitted to celebrate their religious festivals publicly within an Islamic state. (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa; Tafsir Ibn Kathir).

The Blood of One Who Commits Shirk Is Lawful

The book A Review of Shirk, Bid‘ah, and Superstitions Prevalent in Bangladesh, written by Md. Abdul Qader and published under the editorship of Dr. Abu Bakr Muhammad Zakaria, a renowned Bangladeshi Islamic scholar and a prominent scholar of Islamic jurisprudence, states unequivocally that shirk is an offense punishable by death. The blood of those who commit shirk is lawful for Muslims! Let us examine the book directly, ^[21]—

Conclusion: Freedom of Belief versus Institutional Coercion

An analysis of the theoretical discussion, historical documents, and reliable scriptural evidence presented above reveals a constant truth: the concept of ‘religious freedom’ in Islam is not founded upon any eternal moral principle; rather, it is a circumstantial and strategic position. When Muslims were a powerless minority during the Meccan period, messages of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ (such as: La ikraha fid-din) were propagated. But as soon as they acquired military and political power in Medina, that ‘tolerance’ was supplanted by the ‘Verse of the Sword’ and commands for offensive jihad. In other words, as its power and manpower increased, Islam manifested itself in its primal and coercive form. The offensive wars waged by Muhammad and during the Caliphate attest to this very truth.

This structural coercion within Islam directly conflicts with the fundamental human rights of modern civilized society. The reasons are as follows:

In conclusion, it may be said that Islam, in its original and unadulterated form, is in no way suitable for a humane and civilized society. By introducing coercion into the realm of belief, it obstructs human creativity and the pursuit of truth. A religion that seeks to increase the number of its adherents through the threat of the sword or legal repression cannot, whatever else it may be, offer any guidance to freedom-seeking people. Rather, it is a politically hegemonic system that glorifies division over peace and slavery over freedom.